Security Dialogue最新文献

{"title":"Making amends: Towards an antiracist critical security studies and international relations","authors":"N. Behera, K. Hinds, A. Tickner","doi":"10.1177/09670106211024407","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211024407","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Controversy over an article written by Allison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit (2020) on securitization theory’s supposed anti-Black thinking and methodological whiteness, a detailed rejoinder by two of the Copenhagen School’s main representatives that faults the authors’ analysis for poor scholarship and ‘deep fake’ methodology (Wæver and Buzan, 2020; see also Hansen, 2020), and the subsequent backlash towards the senior male scholars’ alleged attack against their female detractors form a telling episode of parochial academic theater. While this insular debate raged on social media, the streets of the United States and elsewhere were ablaze with massive protests against a very tangible form of racism, namely, police brutality. Protesters’ forceful assertion that Black lives matter and that racism is a structural problem globally makes it almost impossible not to think about problems of race. Yet similar claims have long been made by Black, critical race, and post/decolonial studies, while the manifestations of this systemic problem pervade the everyday lives of Black, indigenous, and people of color in rich/poor, developed/developing, and powerful/weak states alike. Let’s face it: the academy in general, the field of international relations, and the subfield of security studies all bear similar marks of the white, Western, imperial, man’s world. This is especially clear to those who engage in international relations, as we do, from diverse locations in the global South. Although a growing body of literature has emerged on race and racism in world politics that has unearthed the foundational role played by the global color line, colonialism, capitalism, and patriarchy in both the constitution of a hierarchical and racialized order and the creation of the discipline (e.g. Anievas et al., 2015; Chowdhry","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"52 1","pages":"8 - 16"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44739279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Critical security studies, racism and eclecticism","authors":"S. Makinda","doi":"10.1177/09670106211024430","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211024430","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction This forum is about race and racism in critical security studies, as well as the latter’s reparative possibilities. Racism is a ubiquitous ailment in many societies and manifests itself differently under varying circumstances (Clair and Denis, 2015; McWhorter, 2019). It is a complex phenomenon that is sometimes hard to define or dismiss. In most cases, racism may be invisible, systemic or structural. For the purposes of this article, racism includes bigotry, prejudice or discrimination against people on the basis of identity, usually race, ethnicity or culture. The above terms are problematic and require explanations, but these cannot be provided in such a short article. Racism may be directed against people who are in a majority, as was the case in South Africa for over a century until the 1990s. It may also be directed against a minority, as is the case in the USA with regard to blacks, in China with regard to Uighurs, and in Myanmar in relation to the Rohingya. This definition of racism is minimalist and may not cover racism in some circumstances. Moreover, racism is primarily about power, control and exploitation. Those who have lived the experience of racism and those who have only read about it understand it in profoundly different ways. Although racism has been largely associated with relationships in which whites discriminate against non-whites, there have been situations in which whites have been at the receiving end of racism. For example, the Anglo-Celtic in Australia discriminated against Aborigines for centuries and against the newly arrived white Italians and Greeks after World War II. The expulsion of Asians from Uganda under Idi Amin in the 1970s resulted from racism perpetrated by non-whites against other non-whites. The call for interventions in this forum refers to critical security studies as a field of study and practice, but this field comprises different research programmes that are sharply divided (Mutimer, 2010). So, establishing that these competitive programmes, such as constructivism, post-structuralism and critical theory, are racist would be difficult (see Hansen, 2020; Howell and RichterMontpetit, 2020; Wæver and Buzan, 2020). In what follows, I explain the global multiracial forces that gave rise to critical security studies, as well as some reparative possibilities. In the next section, I explore the diverse global forces that brought into being critical security studies and posit that claims about its origins in the Frankfurt School and Antonio Gramsci are exaggerated (Bilgin, 2008). I argue that persistent claims of its intellectual heritage from only European sources have effectively reduced the visibility of the racial diversity of its bases and","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"52 1","pages":"142 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43470363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Critical privilege studies: Making visible the reproduction of racism in the everyday and international relations","authors":"V. Peterson","doi":"10.1177/09670106211017369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211017369","url":null,"abstract":"The world is undeniably in trouble. Crises and corollary insecurities are legible everywhere, marked by environmental degradation, healthcare panics, stark inequalities, militarized conflicts, and the rise of authoritarian movements and virulent alt-right populisms. That racism figures in producing and structuring these entwined crises is widely recognized, and, given its disciplinary remit, international relations is best positioned to examine ‘the link between race as a structuring principle and the transnational processes of accumulation, dispossession, violence and struggle that emerge in its wake’ (Anievas et al., 2015: 9). Yet international relations’ problematic engagement with race is now well-documented,1 including the discipline’s ‘origin’ as an imperial racist project (Vitalis, 2015), the ‘willful amnesia’ that this encouraged (Krishna, 2001: 401), and the legacy of ‘racist epistemological assumptions that inform much of contemporary mainstream and even critical analyses of world politics’ (Sajed, 2016a: 168; see also Grovogui, 1996; Hobson, 2012; Gruffydd Jones, 2016). Revisiting points made in his 1997 book, Charles Mills (2015b: 542) concludes that ‘the racial contract is very much alive and well . . . and the “epistemology of ignorance” that now guards it is as active as ever’. But the problem is larger. Despite abundant evidence of institutionalized racism, international relations persists not only in habitual neglect and a deeply flawed theorization of race, but also in actively resisting, marginalizing, depoliticizing, and hence devalorizing anti-racist research and those who produce it (Bhambra et al., 2020; Chowdhry and Rai, 2009; El-Malik, 2015; Shilliam, 2020; Vitalis, 2015). Given epistemological priorities, we might expect this resistance by conventionally ahistorical, non-reflexive mainstream scholars. But it is unexpected and poses fundamental questions when ardent resistance to critique is practiced by self-identified critical scholars, whose objectives presumably extend beyond the production of ‘more accurate descriptions’ to include the reduction, or at least mitigation, of structural violence. How is it possible for those who","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"52 1","pages":"17 - 27"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42721897","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The banalization of race in international security studies: From absolution to abolition","authors":"Nivi Manchanda","doi":"10.1177/09670106211033227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211033227","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction International relations in general, and international security studies in particular, has recently and very publicly been grappling with race and racism. We might even be tempted to claim international security studies was, for once, ahead of the curve, as this grappling predated the murder of George Floyd on 25 May 2020, an event that jolted race into the consciousness of people and enterprises that had hitherto practised what Charles Mills (2007: 13) has referred to as an ‘epistemology of ignorance’. Unfortunately, only the ‘timing’ of this ‘debate’ may be deemed ‘progressive’, with most of international security studies clinging to its racialized worldview and some even threatening revanchism. Rather than rehash the arguments following the vituperative reaction to an academic journal article that critiqued securitization theory for being premised on racist political thought (Howell and Richter-Montpetit, 2020), this article reflects on why the grammars of race are still so prevalent in international security studies, whether an anti-racist (sub)discipline is possible, and what strategies might tackle, and ultimately overturn, the racialized logics at the core of security studies. It concludes that in lieu of narratives of redemption, and indeed absolution, security studies must agitate for reparations and the abolition of empire. I start by adumbrating a short disciplinary history of international relations, and of the privileged location of international security studies within it, arguing that, as Alan Collins avers, ‘Security Studies is the sub-discipline of International Relations. It is the study of security that lies at the heart of International Relations. It was the carnage of World War I and the desire to avoid its horrors that gave birth to the discipline of International Relations in 1919 at Aberystwyth, United Kingdom’ (Collins, 2016: 1, emphasis in original). This is echoed by James Der Derian (1993: 95) when he claims that ‘no other concept in international relations packs the metaphysical punch, nor commands the disciplinary power of “security”’. I then analyse what Denise Ferreira da Silva (2017) has referred to as the ‘banalization of racial events’ in order to underscore and parse the normative whiteness of security studies,1 before concluding with a call to defund the contemporary (Western) imperial enterprise – a demand that I submit those working with and through notions of security are in a unique position to make, not least because they (we) have thus far aided and abetted its cause.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"52 1","pages":"49 - 59"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42246063","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The contingencies of whiteness: Gendered/racialized global dynamics of security narratives","authors":"C. Baker","doi":"10.1177/09670106211024408","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211024408","url":null,"abstract":"Both the fortification of European borders against migration from the global South and Western militaries’ involvement in wars ostensibly to prevent terrorist networks reaching Western shores belong to what critical and feminist security studies already recognize as a racialized security regime. Within this gendered racial order, policies, discourses and everyday practices surrounding border security, migration, asylum and war reinforce each other to construct ‘Europe’ and ‘the West’ as normatively white spaces, under threat from racialized Others within and without (see, for example, Gray and Franck, 2019; Stachowitsch and Sachseder, 2019). Yet, on the southeastern periphery of the European Union, which was constructed as a zone of security threat in the 1990s and is now charged with securing the EU’s border with the global South, identifications with whiteness are both more complex and more consequential than Western European perspectives may know them to be.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"52 1","pages":"124 - 132"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49216792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Race, space, and ‘terror’: Notes from East Africa","authors":"S. Al‐Bulushi","doi":"10.1177/09670106211024418","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211024418","url":null,"abstract":"In early 2016, I received an exasperated text message from a friend in Nairobi. Referencing the newly released political thriller Eye in the Sky, she contested the film’s portrayal of Kenya as a place of violence and terror. Having returned the previous year from Kenya, where I conducted extended ethnographic research on questions related to militarism and security, I reflected on the film and her reaction to it. In Eye in the Sky, British and American military officials rely on satellite imagery to track the movements of suspected Al-Shabaab militants in Kenya’s capital city of Nairobi. As the story unfolds, the officials close in on a home in the Nairobi neighborhood of Eastleigh, where the home’s inhabitants are in the midst of assembling vests armed with explosives. Debate quickly ensues in London and Washington about whether to launch a drone strike on this home with the goal of preventing a future – seemingly imminent – act of violence. Because the film is almost exclusively focused on the decisionmaking process leading up to a drone strike, commentators have generally foregrounded the question of ‘ethical’ warfare as seen from the perspective of those who occupy imperial war rooms. In their accounts, the historical specificity of Kenya as a country that has become entangled in the war against Al-Shabaab is entirely obscured by images of a generic, lawless Africa inhabited by killers and their potential victims. Both the film and its critics in the Global north overlook the day-to-day politics on the ground that have shaped Kenya’s relationship to the racialized geopolitics of the so-called war on terror. I quickly discovered that Kenyans on social media shared my friend’s frustrations and challenged the film’s portrayal of Nairobi as a war zone overrun by Al-Shabaab militia. ‘Wow great movie this #eyeinthesky but got so many wrong things about our great nation #Kenya.’ ‘Clearly the guys who made #EyeInTheSky have never been to Nairobi. Nice film but inaccurate imagination that Nairobi is like Mogadishu.’ ‘Shocking how #EyeInTheSky depicts a real country #Kenya & city #Nairobi are under control of militants. Ridiculous!’ These impassioned interventions rejected the notion that Kenya is in any way connected to the racialized ‘ungoverned spaces’ typically associated with ‘terrorism’. They reflected an affective geopolitics about ‘us’ and ‘them’ that structures many of my middle-class interlocutors’ sense of self. Many people I encountered in the course of my research were invested in an imaginative","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"52 1","pages":"115 - 123"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47721911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Race and racism in critical security studies","authors":"M. Salter, E. Gilbert, Jairus Grove, Jana Hönke, Doerthe Rosenow, Anna Stavrianakis, M. Stern","doi":"10.1177/09670106211038787","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211038787","url":null,"abstract":"But the inevitable postponing of critical scholarship about race, racialisation and racism forestalls the ability of Indigenous scholars and POC to invest our careers in these topics within the academy. If Universities are not yet ready to challenge white supremacy, will they ever be? And if a program on critical race thinking is not supported today, how can White scholars advance claims that academy is in fact a safe space for Indigenous scholars, let alone claim that decolonisation is occurring within the halls of the academy itself? (Todd, 2016: 13)","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"52 1","pages":"3 - 7"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46651075","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond ambivalence: Locating the whiteness of security","authors":"Rhys Machold, C. Charrett","doi":"10.1177/09670106211031044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211031044","url":null,"abstract":"Critical security studies’ increasing engagement with race and racism offers a welcome corrective to the subfield’s longstanding tendency to ignore such concerns. Yet our intervention begins from the premise that simply adding race and racism to the list of topics and frames of critical security analysis is insufficient. This follows from the growing recognition that critical security studies’ and international relations’ disavowal and erasure of racism is not reducible to a lack of attention to race per se. It concerns the myriad ways in which international relations (Anievas et al., 2015; Henderson, 2013; Krishna, 2001; Muppidi, 2012; Rutazibwa, 2016; Tilley and Shilliam, 2017; Vitalis, 2015) and security studies (Howell and Richter-Montpetit, 2019, 2020) are implicated in civilizational thinking at the core of white supremacy. Building on these insights, our intervention is structured around the following question: If we take seriously that international relations and security studies are implicated in civilizational thinking, how might recognition of this amend our existing critical depositions to security as well as our analytical starting points for what security is and does? Answering this question requires taking stock of how critical security studies’ orientation to security squares with wider questions concerning power and structure in global politics. In developing non-traditional approaches to security, critical security studies has cultivated an important critical distance from state security and (neo)realist accounts of war-making as security. Guided by an imperative to decentre material relationships, however, critical security studies has embraced a commitment to open-ended and ambivalent accounts of power, which unmoor security from histories and structures (Barkawi, 2011). As a result, critical security studies broadly (and its poststructuralist variants in particular) ‘fail[s] . . . to adequately situate security within complex entanglements with other technologies of power’ (Coleman and Rosenow, 2016: 203). This tendency to abstract security from wider power configurations, we suggest, has largely precluded critical approaches to security from apprehending racism as a structural form of power in global","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"52 1","pages":"38 - 48"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43090329","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A call for abolition: The disavowal and displacement of race in critical security studies","authors":"D. Chandler, Farai Chipato","doi":"10.1177/09670106211024413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211024413","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction In 2020, Security Dialogue issued a call for interventions on race and racism in critical security studies, responding to a tumultuous year of global upheaval and academic controversy surrounding racial issues in contemporary society. In the call, the editors highlighted the lack of engagement with race in the field, requesting submissions that interrogate these issues and propose reparative framings to inform future research. Our response to this call seeks to raise some notes of caution, to indicate that the depth and nature of the problem require full acknowledgement prior to the consideration of what, if any, reparative work may be undertaken. We do not think that the call is problematic in its statement that ‘the spectres of race and racism haunt the field of critical security studies, not just the broader discipline of International Relations’ (Security Dialogue, 2020). However, we question the ability of the field to provide reparative perspectives that are adequate to the task of grappling with these spectres. Since its beginnings, critical security studies has sought to move discussions of security away from traditional, state-centric perspectives, towards broader and deeper approaches, often focusing on the possibility of security as emancipation or interrogating its conceptual foundations. Studies emerged that focused on gender, securitization, new materialism, ontological security and many other issues, as well as race, as critical security scholars found new and diverse subjects to centre their research on. Recent ground-breaking work has highlighted how spectres of race within the canon of thought in international relations continue to shape disciplinary approaches and assumptions, with Meera Sabaratnam’s (2020) and Olivia Rutazibwa’s (2020) work being just two examples. Despite these interventions, issues of race and racism remain peripheral to the field, understood as an addition to the discussion rather than a foundational factor at the core of notions of security and the world they seek to secure. The question, then, is whether it is possible or desirable to disentangle critical security studies from its racial foundations, to salvage or redeem it, and, if so, how","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"566 1","pages":"60 - 68"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41263071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The making of racialized subjects: Practices, history, struggles","authors":"M. Tazzioli","doi":"10.1177/09670106211024423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211024423","url":null,"abstract":"However, the governing of migration is characterized by a multiplication of hierarchies and racialized differences among migrants themselves, and this requires bringing into the analysis the mundane administrative, legal and police practices enacted by states and non-state actors ([7]). 4 Throughout this intervention, I use \"migrant\" to broadly refer to individuals who have been racialized, labelled and governed in that way, and I speak about \"migrants and refugees\" when I am also including those subjects who are shaped and targeted by humanitarian technologies. Migrants are deemed to be nothing but (black) bodies to be saved, and the political debate on migrants' deaths has been characterized by a \"race to the bottom\" - that is, by disputes over whether there is a moral duty to rescue all migrants, whether it is feasible to attempt to do so, and whether or not they should be allowed to disembark in Europe ([14]). On this occasion, then, migrants were crafted neither as threats nor as subjects of pity and bodies to be rescued;instead, the Italian government shaped its narrative in medical terms: migrants' lives, the argument went, should not be put at risk and could not be protected at this time. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Security Dialogue is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"52 1","pages":"107 - 114"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47646425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}